If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Tie it all together for me, I'm not seeing what the NEA has to do with creating or limiting factions? What exactly are you guys smoking in that part of the country?

To answer your question read Federalist Ten with an open mind and absorb the message being conveyed, and then apply it to todayís circumstances.

Madison's theme was in fact ďfactionsĒ and the danger they present. Madison writes:

ĒBy a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.Ē

And who today falls within Madisonís definition of faction? Does the following partial list not meet the definition?

Does each of the above identified factious groups not encourage and demand the federal government to use the force of federal taxation to finance their cause by confiscating the property a wage earner has in their labor?

Do you not think our federal government having usurped a power over the above mentioned social needs and wants of the people within the various State borders has created a number of factious groups which put their personal needs and desire above our federal governmentís assigned duties which are listed beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause, 1?

To avoid the dangers of such factious groups our wise founding fathers refused to delegate a power to Congress to care for the social needs of the people within the various state borders which, if not restricted, would create countless tax-payer vs tax-getter factions. In fact, by the Tenth Amendment, our founders purposely left the social needs of the people within the powers of the various State Governments. And how is this summarized and confirmed by one of our Founders during the debates which framed our Constitution? Hamilton writes in Federalist Number 45:

ďThe powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.Ē

But today, with this separation of powers having been breached and countless ďfederal entitlementsĒ having been unconstitutionally created to satisfy the personal economic needs of the people within the various state borders, our country has been brought to the brink of financial ruin. Our national unfunded debt liability is an estimated $125 TRILLION and approximately 62% of our federal governmentís expenditures are for social purposes not authorized by our federal Constitution.

As I have previously pointed out, if we donít reverse our federal governmentís tax-payers vs tax-getters redistribution policies, we most certainly will suffer the same fate as Venezuela, Chile, the UK, and other socialist countries which, instead of protecting the peopleís inalienable right to succeed or fail at their own hand, have decided to use government force to steal the product of one personís labor which is then transferred to another individual or group to be used for their personal economic needs, which in fact is an immoral use of government force.

And what is the fundamental reason for government as expressed by one of our forefathers?

"Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man's labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny."

JWK"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Association v. Topeka,(1875).